Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

New Zealand Three-Strikes Law To Be Tested

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the hanged-by-the-neck-until-cranky dept.

Piracy 77

Dangerous_Minds writes "Next month, tribunals will begin for the first people receiving their third strikes in the New Zealand 'Three Strikes Law.' In all, 11 people will have their cases heard, including one who said that her connection was used without her knowledge. Freezenet notes that there has been a long history of controversy for the law from the Internet blackout protests of 2008 to the cablegate leak which revealed that the law was financed and pushed by the United States."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The obvious question here.... (-1)

mark-t (151149) | about 2 years ago | (#42565783)

.... is if her connection was really used without her knowledge, then how would she know about it?

Re:The obvious question here.... (5, Insightful)

Calydor (739835) | about 2 years ago | (#42565827)

By being sued for illegal downloads she knows she did not do herself?

Re:The obvious question here.... (1)

HeadOffice (912211) | about 2 years ago | (#42565847)

That sounds like the obvious answer here...

New Zealand = New China ? (0, Troll)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 2 years ago | (#42565875)

We all know how free China really is.

Now New Zealand wants to join China in providing "Internet Freedom" ??

Re:New Zealand = New China ? (2)

Seeteufel (1736784) | about 2 years ago | (#42566401)

At least China is sovereign, not a poodle of the United States. China just lowers the quality of service of foreign competitors.

Re:The obvious question here.... (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 2 years ago | (#42565893)

Wouldn't the more immediate conclusion be that there must be some sort of mistake, rather than thinking that somebody else did something which incriminated you?

Re:The obvious question here.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42565909)

Why would either of them be any more immediate than the other? She might not have realized that it's so broken that they can make such a grave error.

Re:The obvious question here.... (2)

Osgeld (1900440) | about 2 years ago | (#42565923)

there must be some mistake, the ISP did something which incriminated you

solved

they sweatboxed her with a lawsuit, and the first rational answer popped out

my dumbass ISP (comcast) cant even transfer the fact that I am logged in while shopping for services ON THEIR OWN SITE

Re:The obvious question here.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42565933)

They are being told they "stole" something. If you weren't technical and even if you were (and probably more likely if you were) you'd think it was a human who got access. The simple reason is this stuff is automated.

I'd be surprised if half the cases weren't people not realizing or not remembering or not knowing they downloaded some file or not knowing the source was illegitimate.

However I'm sure there are a lot of errors too on the part of those doing the accusing as well as the ISPs themselves.

I Hear that some IPS have an hand time with g caps (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 2 years ago | (#42568507)

I Hear that some IPS have an hand time with get the meters for the download caps working right so it's likely there may be some kind of error.

Re:The obvious question here.... (5, Informative)

Mistakill (965922) | about 2 years ago | (#42566065)

NZ law specifically written with sponsorship from the MPAA/RIAA (about $1m NZD) and is written so that the account holder is fully the responsible party, even at say a school, library, starbucks, etc

Re:The obvious question here.... (4, Insightful)

Mistakill (965922) | about 2 years ago | (#42569775)

This makes for good reading http://lawgeeknz.posterous.com/nzs-copyright-proposal-guilty-until-you-prove [posterous.com]

The form of an infringement notice is to be prescribed by regulation. However, the fact that the form is correctly completed is not relevant to the issue of whether or not there has been copyright infringement. So that does not explain why the mere filing of a notice should be conclusive evidence.

Merely CORRECTLY filling out a complaint notice, is deemed sufficient evidence that an offense occurred if it goes to a tribunal

To put it another way, if someone accused me of downloading X song on Y day, and i didn't, i still have yet to find anyone who can show me a way to prove i didn't

Example:"Sir, you are accused of downloading one mp3 titled 'Justin Bieber - Baby', please prove you didn't if you wish to defend yourself"

Um.... /pass??

Re:The obvious question here.... (1)

mpe (36238) | about 2 years ago | (#42573875)

Merely CORRECTLY filling out a complaint notice, is deemed sufficient evidence that an offense occurred if it goes to a tribunal

To put it another way, if someone accused me of downloading X song on Y day, and i didn't, i still have yet to find anyone who can show me a way to prove i didn't

Example:"Sir, you are accused of downloading one mp3 titled 'Justin Bieber - Baby', please prove you didn't if you wish to defend yourself"


If it's that simple then why are there only 11 cases? Also why are there not numerous corporations, politicans (even The Queen) facing such tribunals?

Re:The obvious question here.... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42565853)

Well if she is certain she did not do the download then
a) Either they have made an error [mis identified user / mis identified file]
b) Someone else used her connection
  - This could be figured out in a number of ways such as (proving it could be a different matter)
          - time of access (she was not home or away)
          - software platform used to download [maybe she is an OSx user and it was a Windows app?]
          - logs on her router showing different MAC addresses have connected

Re:The obvious question here.... (2)

Aryden (1872756) | about 2 years ago | (#42565887)

b) Someone else used her connection - This could be figured out in a number of ways such as (proving it could be a different matter) - time of access (she was not home or away) - software platform used to download [maybe she is an OSx user and it was a Windows app?] - logs on her router showing different MAC addresses have connected

all of which can be forged or otherwise have false evidence presented.

Re:The obvious question here.... (2)

Osgeld (1900440) | about 2 years ago | (#42565913)

on both sides

Re:The obvious question here.... (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 2 years ago | (#42565901)

I would think a) is the much more probable conclusion by somebody who is genuinely unaware of any of b).

cause shes like er um being sued (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42565947)

boy smarten up and quit trying to trip people up that aren't being sneaky

That's about the size of it (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42565807)

"the law was financed and pushed by the United States"
New Zealand, control those music listeners, or we send in the marines.

Re:That's about the size of it (5, Interesting)

88Seconds (242800) | about 2 years ago | (#42566087)

"the law was financed and pushed by the United States"

and pushed through on the back of legislation for assisting those affected by the Christchurch earthquake. So anyone opposing this bit of the bill would also be denying help to those who really needed it.

Re:That's about the size of it (2)

coma_bug (830669) | about 2 years ago | (#42566309)

and pushed through on the back of legislation for assisting those affected by the Christchurch earthquake

link? there are no riders in NZ..

Re:That's about the size of it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42566439)

Here are some details about the circumstances under which the law was passed [tvnz.co.nz]

Re:That's about the size of it (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42569333)

The were passed under urgency, using legislation to try and get earthquake stuff sorted. It was incredibly corrupt, and both Labour and National signed it.

In fact it was Labour who started this law, and Clare Curran is getting a few free trips to LA to "give her a new respect for intellectual property". National diluted it slightly, but every politician is an absolute evil piece of shit for making this law.

Re:That's about the size of it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42567079)

That's exactly what the Democratic Party in the good ol' U.S.A. does -- cheeky Americans. It's no wonder they're going broke. The cattle votes for the party that the media makes out to be the good guy. Not the best thing for the country over there.

Re:That's about the size of it (2)

Gr8Apes (679165) | about 2 years ago | (#42567183)

Disingenuous at best, since both parties flagrantly do this as a standard practice. The going broke aspect is because one party in particular believes that we can spend and lower taxes. If they truly wish to lower the spend rate, they could start by removing all congress people from federal payrolls. Since they're supposedly employed by and on behalf of their states, let the states pay them and their office staff. Once removed from federal funds, perhaps they could then look at the spending with a less biased eye.

Re:That's about the size of it (2)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 years ago | (#42569225)

Apparently you are under the false impression that there are different parties.

Re:That's about the size of it (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 2 years ago | (#42566693)

"the law was financed and pushed by the United States"

Heaven forbid the Kiwis take responsibility for the laws they enact...

The guilty party is the government for trading legislation for favors/money/etc.

(yes, Americans should also take responsibility for the laws they enact instead of blaming corporations)

Re:That's about the size of it (3, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 2 years ago | (#42568169)

Uhhh...how EXACTLY are we supposed to " take responsibility for the laws" when our election cycle is as fake and rigged as pro wrestling? If you aren't from the USA let me break down how it works, in the primary you are given a choice of 4 to 5 shills, you may get one "dark horse" that isn't a shill but the MSM is owned by the megacorps and will make sure nobody knows they exist. See the video on Ron Paul by Jon Stewart where Paul was literally "He who shall NOT be named" when they would announce the first, second, and FOURTH place winners in a contest.

Then after the corp owned MSM has made sure "the people's choice" is two shills they already own you then are given a bunch of "hot button issues" that the corps don't give a fuck about and therefor don't care which way they go, abortion, gay rights, shit that won't affect their bottom line, and then you can "choose" from shill A or shill B, either of which will keep passing corporate friendly laws that benefit the rich old fucks that have been ruling this country for a good 150+ years now, your JP Morgans, your Goldman Sachs, the whole 7 media conglomerates that own every single thing you see, hear, and read, its the same names over and over and OVER getting their way, and if anything goes wrong they just get another "too big to fail" like Golman Sachs who used Wall Street like Las Vegas and when the bubble busted got 125 cents on every dollar out of the pockets of every American, nice.

You see friend you simply can't change a corrupt system by working within that system [youtube.com] and the reason why should be fairly obvious...because its corrupt! So I would like to hear how EXACTLY the American people are supposed to "control" or "change" anything when the entire media is owned by a handful of uber-rich, when you have "free speech zones" and every movement ends up with 2 fed infiltrators for every 5 people, how EXACTLY are we supposed to "take responsibility" when we have less of a voice now than we did before the revolution?

Re:That's about the size of it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42569327)

You won't send in the marines, we don't have any oil!

Sort of one sided isn't it? (4, Interesting)

thogard (43403) | about 2 years ago | (#42565861)

They have several images on their web site that count as "derived works" of my work under US copyright law and they haven't payed me anything.

Can I send them 3 take down notices and then pull their internet access and get them fined $15,000?

Re:Sort of one sided isn't it? (1)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about 2 years ago | (#42565957)

Go for it! Clicky-linky for the derived images and your original works would be appreciated! I wish you could indeed get paid, however they have not set up a "streamlined process" for the likes of you or me, have they? Best wishes.

Re:Sort of one sided isn't it? (2)

neoprint (949158) | about 2 years ago | (#42566073)

Yes you can, and speaking as a New Zealander, PLEASE DO SO. The more things like this happen, the more ridiculous it looks.

Re:Sort of one sided isn't it? (1)

dadelbunts (1727498) | about 2 years ago | (#42566119)

That would be great.

Re:Sort of one sided isn't it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42566533)

As a New Zealander, I'd love to see you do it. In fact, if you can do it for one image, then wait a week, do it for another, wait a week, and do it for a third, then write to some of the news media here detailing how they're being done for their own laws, I would cheer.

Re:Sort of one sided isn't it? (1)

thogard (43403) | about 2 years ago | (#42566605)

Nearly every modern web site includes images that derive from my early work with 24 bit images. Everybody would just copy and extend and the web would not exist if that IP had been protected the way the laws claim it should be. If I hit NZ with it, other countries may find a way around it as a response. I'm wondering if I shouldn't assign the copyright to some appropriate group but I'm not sure what to do yet. It will be an excellent way to make man politically connected enemies.

Re:Sort of one sided isn't it? (1)

coma_bug (830669) | about 2 years ago | (#42566657)

Nearly every modern web site includes images that derive from my early work with 24 bit images.

link or it didn't happen.

Re:Sort of one sided isn't it? (2)

thogard (43403) | about 2 years ago | (#42566823)

You know that very little of this stuff was on the web (which doesn't change its copyright status at all) since there are 16,77,217 1x1 images and someone had to invent the 1x1 pixel expansion stuff and well equipped computer at the time had 68 meg of disk. I was working creating images for evaluating if 24 bit RGB systems were good enough. The conclusion at the time is that 8 bits of R, G & B weren't but 8 bits of H, S & I would produce much more lifelike images and you might even find that discussion showing up on /. in the past. It turns out that at least 75% of the colors your computer can display are brown or grey and it isn't very good at doing simple orange. The gradient stuff is very interesting since one would expect that there are about 2^64 nice linear gradients but when you figure that there are only about 4 million useful colors and a limited number of other colors on complementary side of the color wheel (which humans seem to find ascetically pleasing) and you end up dropping lots of them when you do a gradient, there aren't that many useful gradients in use. Once you figure that most gradients are subsets of others, there is a shockingly small number of useful ones. If you want you can get a 4d matrix of Blue, Green -> Blue, Green of both 65536 starting values and find the slash dot banner gradient right there with all the other useful ones and most of them can fit on a 9 track tape. If you map that into a 2d image for colors people will describe as color (and not grey, white or black), you will find that there too.

Re:Sort of one sided isn't it? (1)

coma_bug (830669) | about 2 years ago | (#42573221)

So you're claiming copyright over all gradients? Yeah, ok :-/

Once you figure that most gradients are subsets of others, there is a shockingly small number of useful ones.

In that case the merger doctrine [wikipedia.org] will be a problem for you.

Re:Sort of one sided isn't it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42570871)

Him:
1) Homepage is [a dictionary word].com
2) slashdot ID 100K
3) looks like he knows what he is talking about
== someone who should be listened to.

You:
1) 'link or it didn't happen hurr durr'
2) comment history is mostly one-liners
== intellectually lazy, trite, useless, adds nothing.

Re:Sort of one sided isn't it? (1)

ByteSlicer (735276) | about 2 years ago | (#42568749)

Can I send them 3 take down notices and then pull their internet access and get them fined $15,000?

If you bring it to their attention, it wouldn't surprise me if they claim your work as theirs and get you fined $15,000...

Re:Sort of one sided isn't it? (1)

Kalriath (849904) | about 2 years ago | (#42578651)

Yes, but you have to do it a month apart and then you have to take them to the tribunal once you've filed the third one.

Easy Money (1)

TemperedAlchemist (2045966) | about 2 years ago | (#42565925)

So, if the lady is held accountable...

Then all a copyright owner has to do is crack into someone's wireless (or just flat out connect), download a bunch of their own copyrighted work, and then sue them for copyright infringement.

Whoo loopholes!

Re:Easy Money (4, Informative)

nzac (1822298) | about 2 years ago | (#42565991)

This is New Zealand its not going to be the maximum fine or probably even an order of magnitude less. They will likely not recoup the costs to get it there.
Last fines RIANZ tried to push were based on figures based on the damage it cause. The only way for to them get 3 MP3 downloads into the 3 figure mark was to try to argue that they were shared 90 times (would like to know how they got this figure) and then triple it (at least this is what they tried to do to the last distort person before it was thrown out).

As long as it stays tied to real damages NZs fines will not make it to the 500 dollar mark, covering the 250 or so in court fees to get it there in the first place. Internet is too expensive here to seed.

Re:Easy Money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42566151)

Until Kim Dotcom buys us a nice new undersea cable! I think he wants to host 'MEGA' from NZ right?
He probably won't want to have to pay the crazy prices they charge on the line southern cross cable...

Re:Easy Money (1)

schizz69 (1239560) | about 2 years ago | (#42566345)

Tell me about it. I stop seeding as soon as I finish my torrents. Suck on my bandwidth caps Linux distro peers!

Re:Easy Money (1)

Kijori (897770) | about 2 years ago | (#42566791)

Yes, as with absolutely any type of lawsuit it is possible for a claimant to frame a defendant. They could equally crack their wireless and post defamatory statements about themselves or drop their belongings in the person's shopping bag. This is the reason that perjury is a serious criminal offence that renders a person liable to a lengthy period of imprisonment.

Re:Easy Money (1)

History's Coming To (1059484) | about 2 years ago | (#42568423)

Which is an angle the defence lawyer should be playing. There's so much "reasonable doubt" involved in a case like this that if it goes before a jury there's a good chance they'll acquit.

Re:Easy Money (1)

stoatwblr (2650359) | about 2 years ago | (#42575995)

Civil cases don't need reasonable doubt, just balance of evidence. These kinds of cases are about who's got deeper pockets.

Re:Easy Money (1)

Kalriath (849904) | about 2 years ago | (#42578673)

Cases are heard by the Copyright Tribunal, not a court. There are no peers to judge.

It was actually easy... (1)

Genda (560240) | about 2 years ago | (#42565927)

We just threatened them with no more Hobbitses...

So what comes after the Hobbit? Snow White as JRR Tolkien would have written it?

Re:It was actually easy... (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#42566337)

Nothing. Tolkien only wrote the three classic-format stories. He loved building worlds - everything else he did on middle earth is a daunting mass of history books and artificial linguistics. The Silmarillion is not filmable.

Re:It was actually easy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42566473)

The stories of Morgoth/Melkor and Sauron might be scriptable for movies.

Re:It was actually easy... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42567067)

I'm not sure the Silmarillion is even readable. I tried reading it after I read the LoTR and after struggling to get halfway through it I never picked it up again.

But that doesn't mean you couldn't make a film or three out of it. If you can make a movie out of the game Battleships you can make a movie out of anything.

Re:It was actually easy... (1)

Genda (560240) | about 2 years ago | (#42576301)

Hollywood (as run by bankers) has this unpleasant habit of beating dead horses into a frothy pink slurry. I'm certain there must some remaining bludgeoning of orcs and wizards after the Hobbit... they'll just make it up as whole clothes and anoint it with JRR Tolkien... have his family bless it for a 10% slice of the cinematic cow pie and everyone adjourns to count the proceeds.

You can't succeed with a film anymore without 22 sequels, 11 prequels, 5 spin-offs, a documentary of the making of, and 7 video games in tribute of. Its like the film Oompah Loompahs will be made to squeeze every femtopenny from a genre until the fabric of space and time itself begins to unravel.

3 Strikes (0)

Osgeld (1900440) | about 2 years ago | (#42565943)

they have all this advanced bullshit, but every month I log into comcast's website, pay my bill, then check to see that they are not screwing me over, like the time I found out I could double my internet speed for the same price I was already paying...

while logged in they offer me services not available in my area, and if I try to sign up for something they send me though the same thing as a new customer... do you want to rent your cable box? and installer will be there blah blah blah

only been a customer with them 5 years, think they could RELATE a LOGIN to a SERVICE?

but yet, somehow they are smart enough to figure out that one youtube video has van halen playing in the background as a car drives by?

I send a "fuck you" to every ISP on the planet, you couldn't wipe your own ass without being told to

Re:3 Strikes (4, Informative)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | about 2 years ago | (#42566075)

I send a "fuck you" to every ISP on the planet, you couldn't wipe your own ass without being told to

Don't tar them all with the same brush, iiNet in Australia has been doing great things championing the rights of the user.

Re:3 Strikes (1)

Cimexus (1355033) | about 2 years ago | (#42571393)

Yep, I'm so glad we do have a couple of 'good guy' ISPs in this country. iiNet being one and Internode (which of course is now owned by iiNet, but still operates as a separate concern) being the other. They're both run by geeks who think in much the same way as we do, and it shows.

Sadly I'm moving to the US next year where instead of having 30+ ISPs, some of which are genuinely 'good' to choose from, I'll have 2 or 3 choices at most, all equally evil.

Streamlined extortion queues (4, Informative)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about 2 years ago | (#42565949)

Seems like streamlined extortion to me:
The tribunal can make awards of up to $15,000 against pirates, and Rianz had sought awards of several thousand dollars in at least two of the dropped cases.
In one, Rianz sought about $2700 from a Wellington student whose internet account was allegedly used without her knowledge to download five songs valued at $11.75. That case also seemed destined for a formal hearing.Fairfax NZ

Really ridiculous to seek fines of $2700 for an acknowledged value of $11.75, at least in my eyes.

Re:Streamlined extortion queues (1)

Grumbleduke (789126) | about 2 years ago | (#42577355)

This varies by jurisdiction and claimant organisation, but often these groups will seek a "reasonable licence fee" on the basis of uploading - the argument being that because someone may have uploaded a file to a random person on the Internet, they need to pay for a worldwide, unlimited licence to distribute that song. Although being generous, sometimes they limit that a bit.

From what I've seen, courts (so far mainly in Germany) haven't bought that argument - in one German case they went with 100 uploads of each song (far too high for anything Torrenty, imho), at about €0,10 per upload, which came to about €80 plus costs. The court wasn't particularly impressed.

But then this is why the enforcement lobby groups have been pushing for statutory fines (such as in NZ) - then the fines/damages don't have to be based on actual losses.

Hollywood owns the government and no one cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42566027)

From the article:

In fact, as part of the Wikileaks diplomatic cables leak (or “Cablegate”), new evidence that the law was merely pushed and paid for by the United States in 2011 reignited a storm of controversy where some opposition politicians found themselves asking the governing party why Hollywood was writing their laws.

You people:

They can pass all the laws they want, as long as they stay off *MY INTERNET*

Okay, hang on. You're telling me you people are worried about Internet freedom rather than corporations writing your laws?

Re:Hollywood owns the government and no one cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42566545)

What puzzles me is this bit

...where some opposition politicians found themselves asking the governing party why Hollywood was writing their laws.

There can't have been very many opposition politicians asking that, since almost every single one of them voted for it.

Law shouldn't be tested. (1)

d33tah (2722297) | about 2 years ago | (#42566045)

It should be thought-over.

So everybody has to do what X Corp. requires, yes? (5, Insightful)

silviuc (676999) | about 2 years ago | (#42566097)

It is appalling how corporations, mostly US based, have managed to get everybody working to protect their interests. Ofc, they could not have done that alone, they have the US Gov that throws its weight around if need arises. They basically have every police dept. working to enforce copyright/DMCA and whatever else they cook up. This might be all fine and dandy if those corporations would bother to pay taxes in the countries they do business in. As it turns out, most of the time, they manage to skip paying them. So we, the citizens, pay taxes to keep police depts that enforce laws for entities that pay nothing in return. Meanwhile, serious crimes do not get solved because there is "personnel shortage". I would love to see how much countries spend per month or year on "defending" copyright and how much they copyright holders paid in taxes for the service.

While I do not approve piracy, I certainly enjoy reading how another attempt to down the piratebay has failed.

Re:So everybody has to do what X Corp. requires, y (1)

Seeteufel (1736784) | about 2 years ago | (#42566411)

Just a matter of time. They cannot win the copyright wars.

Re:So everybody has to do what X Corp. requires, y (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 2 years ago | (#42566711)

It is appalling how corporations, mostly US based, have managed to get everybody working to protect their interests. Ofc, they could not have done that alone, they have the US Gov that throws its weight around if need arises. They basically have every police dept. working to enforce copyright/DMCA and whatever else they cook up. This might be all fine and dandy if those corporations would bother to pay taxes in the countries they do business in. As it turns out, most of the time, they manage to skip paying them.

The corporations want you to keep blaming them, because that way the people that are selling legislation and influence can continue to sell legislation and influence to them.

I cannot believe that so many people dont get it, and convince themselves that blaming the people that arent in control is somehow the correct way to operate their protest.

Re:So everybody has to do what X Corp. requires, y (2)

silviuc (676999) | about 2 years ago | (#42566783)

Actually it's exactly the big corps that have the legislators in their pockets. Both are to blame for the mess they have created

Re:So everybody has to do what X Corp. requires, y (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 2 years ago | (#42567535)

Actually it's exactly the big corps that have the legislators in their pockets.

Its thinking like this that prevents anything from being done about it. The corporations don't hold the keys, the politicians do. The politicians are on control, and all by themselves sell the fruits of that control to corporations. Nobody is forcing them to. They do it willingly. Get it? They are fucking you willingly, for their own benefit.

Re:So everybody has to do what X Corp. requires, y (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 2 years ago | (#42566787)

Car analogy:

A passenger gets into a taxi cab and offers money to the the driver to drive to a specific destination.

Everyone agrees that the taxi driver is still ultimately in control, that the passenger is just making an offer for services. So too, the politicians are ultimately in control, that the corporations are just making an offer for services.

If the cab driver absolutely refused to drive to a specific location, then the cab would never go to that location no matter how many times the passenger asked. So too, if the politician absolutely refused to trade his powers for corporate favor, then rent-seeking laws such as what the RIAA/MPAA get away with would never get passed.

Hold the politicians responsible. Don't vote for the corrupt ones, ever, and be vocal about why you aren't doing so. If everyone on the ballot is a corrupt son-of-a-bitch, write in your own name, and if thats not an option, write "fuck you too" on the ballot.

IT IS STILL THE EVIL CORPS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42568777)

Politicians are not really courageous leaders by the nature of the system and human nature. Even if they were, for a while, POWERFUL forces would try to manipulate them and eventually find ways to gain unwarranted influence over the system. Only the PEOPLE can continually watch and protect the system but as history has shown, all democracies fail due to the inability for the public to maintain control indefinitely; part of this is social psychology and without changing humans it will not go away.

You MUST blame those trying to corrupt the system and attack them as traitors because that is exactly what they are! A tiny treason is always overlooked as insignificant but those tiny steps always add up into despotism -- human history PROVES that there always is a gradual corruption that occurs that leads to implosion (ignoring invasions which don't count because we are talking about system failure.) Democracy is severely flawed, not so much by itself but because of the faulty hardware it runs upon. In addition, humans like other animals do not act when the water is slowly heated beyond their perception -- they'll boil and not realize it before it is too late. This is ultimately the major reason why democracies always fail throughout human history. The over-reaction the public has over big disasters needs to happen over truly important issues that have long term impacts -- but like the MBAs and politicians ruining the world, most people do not think long term.

Anybody grasping this stuff yet? What is the point of history if you don't learn the patterns? We don't even learn history and when we do, we skip point of bothering with it.

The obvious solutions are not so palatable... but reality is not either. The best thing one can do and keep much of what we have already, is to PREVENT anybody or any group from gaining enough power to be able to corrupt the system. That would not be a solution even if perfectly implemented but it would greatly delay the fall into despotism. People are more brainwashed to bitch about "communism" if you cap the salary of the wealthy and the size of the corp, union, etc than the things they should get up in arms about. Money is power; therefore, money must be limited. Separation of powers tries to limit corruption within government but the concept MUST extend outside government or it does not work.

Re:So everybody has to do what X Corp. requires, y (1)

redlemming (2676941) | about 2 years ago | (#42576557)

It is appalling how corporations, mostly US based, have managed to get everybody working to protect their interests. Ofc, they could not have done that alone, they have the US Gov that throws its weight around if need arises.

I'm not sure that "US based" is a particularly meaningful distinction.

Anyone around the world can buy stock in corporations, and where the corporation technically has it's home may have little to do with who is really pulling the strings.

There are many individuals and organizations around the world with vast amounts of wealth, and it would be more reasonable to suppose that these wealthy individuals, or the individuals in charge of these wealthy organizations, collectively control the behavior of the major corporations, than to suppose this is some sort of US plot against the rest of the world.

Also, in all likelihood, most major corporations have citizens of many different countries working for them, which means the policies aren't necessarily being set by US citizens.

Rather than focusing on the "US based" concept, it is probably better to view this situation as involving a multi-nation problem of governments and corporations working together to infringe fundamental human rights, as well as a multi-nation problem with legal professionals choosing to not understand ethical conduct.

You pay for a pipe. (1)

NynexNinja (379583) | about 2 years ago | (#42566153)

You pay for a pipe. What you do with that pipe is up to you. No one should be able to prevent you from using your pipe. I don't see file downloads as causing the kind of public safety concern that might require the provider to disconnect someone's service. It's a stretch. If the provider disconnects the pipe, they are liable for damages, especially if you were using it to conduct business. They do so at their own peril.

A more user friendly P2P network is needed! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42566371)

It is time that the Internet community react to these recurrent incidents with a user friendly (user safe) method to share files.

Irrespective whether this is legal or not, the fact that many people are subjected to unjust law suites is enough as a reason to act in one way or the other. Either make the P2P sharing protocol more secure in identifying the user (i.e. not the IP address or the MAC address, but more solid information that can be tracked to the user), or make it more secure to anonymize the P2P user for good. The latter seems more feasible unless the music and movie industry are willing to fund research for another sharing protocol that we can fork :P

Either of those solutions will probably never happen, but the current situation is a mess.

99% RISE: Easy way to bring them to their feet (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42567955)

I have a simple solution to bring the entire Hollywood movie industry to its feet: don't watch any more movies. Let them create blockbusters. Let them show them at the movies. You ... you don't go to the movies. You don't spend your hard earned money on those expensive tickets to watch those movies. You don't help those Hollywood studios become rich enough and big enough to fund such stupid laws. When you stop watching those movies, and when you keep your hard earned money to yourself, you will bring those 1% companies which are trying to push these laws to their knees.

This calls for a revolution people. Don't watch any more Hollywood movies. Within a year the entire hollywood industry and all the companies that run those movie theaters will have to file for bankruptcy if we, the 99% stick together.

This is the slope that has doomed America (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42568575)

America has asked other countries to pass and enforce American laws even send people to America for breaking them.
These countries will want the same back. Soon American will have to be sent to other countries for breaking that countries laws while never leaving your bedroom.

That will be the straw that flips a really real bad switch in America.

Corporate bully boys! (1)

CHIT2ME (2667601) | about 2 years ago | (#42577901)

Years ago, New Zealand barred U.S. warships which may carry nuclear weapons from docking in their ports. As an American this kind of miffed me. Since without the U.S. they would now all be speaking Japanese. But now, to kotow to corporate bullies and arrest and charge some simple schumck who failed to deploy U.S. DIA level encryption on their wifi network and charge them with "piracy", is pure "wimp-assed" policy. Even though I disagreed with your nuclear weapons carrying warship policy, at least I had to admit it was your choice to make. This total worship of the mighty corporation inspired law is, to me, a total letdown of respect for the New Zealand government. And it makes me wonder; how much money was paid and to what governmental personelle, to get this law passed?

Re:Corporate bully boys! (1)

Kalriath (849904) | about 2 years ago | (#42578719)

Years ago, New Zealand barred U.S. warships which may carry nuclear weapons from docking in their ports. As an American this kind of miffed me. Since without the U.S. they would now all be speaking Japanese.

And Americans wonder why no-one likes them. "Change your laws for us because we saved you in WWII". Despite the fact that America only got involved because Japan bombed Pearl Harbour.

The law here is quick specific: no nuclear powered ships or nuclear weapons are permitted in the country. Your warships specifically were not barred, it was simply illegal for them to dock because the US government refuses to say whether they contained nuclear weapons or not. British warships, Chinese warships, Australian warships, and even New Zealand warships carrying nuclear weapons or powered by a nuclear reactor are equally forbidden.

The irony, of course, is that a New Zealander actually discovered nuclear power.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?